Re: *******Does God Exist?*************

"Nes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Acme Posting wrote:
> > "Nes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...

>(...Continuing criticism of the "human" god, religion)
>
><snip>

>> Paraphrasing to help me understand: "This general transformation of
>> external creative forms is a sure sign that religious perceptions
>> change according to circumstances." And the point is...

I was referring to your subsequent paragraph, now snipped - sorry for
missing the ambiguous phrase. But I like the new version too.<g>
>
>The point is that if "god" really were the creator of the universe,
>"his" nature would be forever unchanging (as would that of the
>universe) which then means that every religious person on Earth
really
>prays to a graven, heathen, mental image, for the human perception of
>"god" varies historically, according to Man's changed material
>circumstances and his socio-psychological adaptations to those same
>conditions. The proof of the last bit can be easily established by
>looking at the way organized religions ALWAYS regard the "gods" and
>dogma of other religions as the creations of Satan, the Opponent. On
>the other hand, if "god" is a creation of the minds of Man, "his"
>historic changes are understandable as a function of changed human
>perceptions. Just another simple contradiction, solved by applying
>Occam's Razor.

Yup another contradiction. They are endless!
>
><snip arguments about the dynamic, dialectical, historic changes that
>"gods" and religions undergo>

>> Excellent support for your thesis. Religion programs faith over
>> empiricism, and that habit of thinking can be transferred into
another
>> dogma. I've actually seen this to be a profound influence in brain
>> programming.
>
>Thanks. This is always a hard point to argue without stroking
somebody
>the wrong way.
>
><snip>

>> I would say that religion must adjust to external cultural change.
It
>> does so very slowly, for instance resistance to female priests. I
am
>> surprised that mainstream religion doesn't incorporate cultural
change
>> and scientific discovery more quickly. In the U.S., lost a lot of
>> membership due to this, I think.
>
>Dogmatic changes in the ideological makeup of organized religions
>change far quicker and more often than most people realize. But there
>is always some (more often long than short) period of delay between
the
>acceptance of new or changed ritual, teaching, and practise into the
>daily workings of clergy and hierarchy and its "official"
>acknowledgement. Often changes in religious practises don't really
>become "officially" accepted as a part of authoritative dogma or
>ritual, but they become incorporated into the "body" of religion,
>anyway. The opposite process can also be seen to happen a lot, where
>former very important religious dogma and ritual lose their
>"popularity" or meaning and simply slip away into oblivion without
>anybody ever taking the effort of ridding the religious "body" of its
>official existence. All this happens as a result of the dynamic,
>dialectical relations which religious communities have with the
larger
>workings of societies and cultures. This is the ordinary way for
"gods"
>and organized religions to reform themselves (and for clergy to avoid
>admitting they were wrong about "god" because of some old doctrine
>becoming superseded). It is NOT customary for the ordinary rank and
>file within organized religions to pay a lot of attention to these
>matters. They always like to imagine that their religion is
>dogmatically or authoritatively eternal and like "god" above the
>influences of mere mortal men.

Notice all that too. Something that surprises me: Some rank and file
do not consider themselves followers and are insulted if you suggest
that.

<snip>

>> It's
>> paradoxical that (I think) economic conservatives could care less
>> about their fundamentalist friend's issues, yet those
fundamentalists
>> tend to be low income people. The slang word "chump" always comes
to
>> mind.
>
>Too right, which brings to mind the question why "economic
>conservatives" care unless they believe they have found a way to
"buy"
>votes.
>
>Here, some of my ignorance about the US and organized religions again
>becomes evident. As far as I have managed to understand, the
"chumps",
>as you call them, poor people with bad educations and fundamentalist
>religious affiliations, have recently managed a (sort of)
break-through
>in social status, thereby becoming a new lower middle class strata
>(petite bourgeois), still fighting hard to hang on to their new
status,
>of course. Is that correct?

To me it sounds as if it misses the mark, with the term "petite
bourgeois" invoking more of a European view of "social status" than a
yankee view. But that could just be my misconception of Europeans, as
I've demonstrated elsewhere! Here I think it is based more on
financial status than in Europe, and less on other factors than in
Europe, not to say that the same factors don't apply everywhere. In
any case, here one does not think of fundamentalists having acheived
any higher social status. After voting, along with their economic
conservative friends, to boost income ratios (again), the average
religious fundamentalist had less of it, the average economic
conservatives had more of it, and that's what makes me think of
"chump." OTOH, the economic conservatives vote for their
fundamentalist issues like abortion, but it doesn't cost them
anything, and (I say) most of them couldn't care less about those
issues.

> If so, it would account for the interest of
>the "economic conservatives" in them as voters and potential
>supporters. It might even account for much of the news I have heard
>during the last decade about the seeming ascendance that Christian
>fundamentalisms are and have been undergoing, and their new influence
>on right wing politics. How does that compute?

Very well, I'd say. They can be activated pretty easily. Churches send
lists around of who to vote for, who to call and complain to, etc.
Very effective political organization. But still not even a "political
majority," much less a numeric majority. Conservatives lost (by vote
count) in nearly all elections for branches of government since 1992.
The win in 2002 was mostly due to the news blitz about Iraq, IMO.
>
><snip debate over the meanings and functions of religious ritual>
>
> ... But the person unable to go to sleep unless having
>prayed to "god" is ordinarily not compelled by circumstances to do
that
>but by the psychological need to go through some ritual in order to
>relax.

Yes that example qualifies.

>Such behaviour is indicative of other-directed motivation by the
>fact that learning to believe in the power of prayer requires some
>effective socialization (not to say, conditioning), yet, when this
idea
>has become internalized, prayer can turn into a self-directed
activity,
>motivated by need to obtain some immediate mental satisfaction or
>reward (like being able to go to sleep).

Ok, I'll buy that.
>
><snip examples of religiousness as obsession>

>> ... Of course there is "group psychology" sometimes at play.
>
>There is indeed. These two can work together, one strengthening the
>other, in order to further reinforce and cement the obsessive and
>compulsive psychological bonds that tie people to religion and
"faith".
>Mental illness as social contagion.

"Mental illness as social contagion" true in context. Loaded words.
>
><snip some debate about the origin of consciousness and intelligence>

<snip the rest of agreement on consciouness/intel>

I'm glad you've owned a dog, BTW. I am amazed at what some Phd's who
have never had dogs as personal pets say about dogs. <g>

<snip agreement about language required to reason>

>> ... Some animals are quite social, or
>> have well-developed, or at least amazing (if narrow) social
>> communication skills.
>
>Yes, many animals have these mental capabilities. But is (abstract)
>self-consciousness among them?

I think not, at least not anything like human-level consciousness.
>
><snip opening debate over the principal differences between religious
>and secular mental indoctrination>
>
> ... I do believe there is a qualitative difference
>between religious and other (secular) kinds of mind-bending
practices.
>Religious indoctrination takes better (than advertisers and political
>propagandists) advantage of the (learned, acquired, socially induced)
>susceptibility many people have for authoritarians forms of
>indoctrination.
>The reason has something to do with the fact that religions can
>concentrate on some few core messages, through ritual internalized to
>become self-motivating, self-regulating, self-affirming psychological
>effects of the belief in some "god". Secular forms of indoctrination
>really can't compete except in quantity.

All true. Religion is most efficient at it. One also has to consider
the importance of the subject (to the listener), including
psychologically as you say. A product commercial may only strike
someone as possibly true, but that's enough to make them try it. A
political message may be somewhat more important, but not terribly.
Again, "the cost of being wrong."
>
><snip debate about the prevalence of existential (self-)doubt as a
>feature of religious beliefs>

>> Ok, we do agree on that (below), saying this subconscious tendency
of
>> reality to assert itself amounted to unconscious doubt,  requiring
>> constant maintenance, etc.
>
>Thanks, I shall remember that this is a tricky point to argue. Very
>useful process.

I agree. Anytime it becomes less argumentative to a worthy critic
(myself excluded), it becomes more likely to be correct as well, IMO.

>> Could you summarize how the First World needs to change, and why
this
>> so affects the Third World?
>
>Sure. The First World needs to end its economic dependence on being
>able to buy raw materials and cash crops from the Third World at
>"artificially" low prices, <snip agreement>

Agree if you imply imperialism with religion as the vehicle.
>
>... Instead, the nations of the First World ought to feel duty bound
to
>repair as much of the awful (historic and contemporaneous) damage as
is
>possible, and it ought to pursue future policies of mutually
beneficial
>relationships that would enable both Third and First World nations to
>engage in common international policies for the preservation of peace
>and beneficial development for all.

Agree that would generally be the right thing. There are some
historical wrongs that could be righted to some degree.
>
>How to achieve all this is the difficult bit. Already, the
First-Third
>World economic divide has developed characteristics by which it
becomes
>more and more likely that unless viable alternatives to present
>practices are found and enacted, this long suffered injustice by
Third
>World peoples and nations will lead to new global conflagrations,
>possibly even nuclear holocaust.

Agree. Though I think some recent trade agreements would be
counter-examples.

>Will the First World be able to understand that? Will Western
>populations become ready to share their wealth with poor people in
>"primitive" nations? It does not seem likely, UNLESS something is
done
>to counteract the "natural" impulse of blind selfishness that is so
>common throughout the wealthy Occident.

I would replace "wealthy Occident" with "world." All nations are or
would be selfish. Nations are like individuals in a lot of ways, but
they have no conscience.

>A new Enlightenment which tries
>to educate the public in such a way that it will really understand
it's
>not "either us or them" but "without them, no us" seems to offer the
>only way forward. And, no, I do not believe that this Third-First
World
>contradiction can be solved strictly by structural economic means or
>reforms. This, in the current circumstances, will only lead to even
>further economic exploitation and injustice - and the obvious
political
>reaction to that from Third World peoples and nations.

I agree with New Enlightenment. But wouldn't that be much more viable
in an atmosphere of economic reform and improvement? Also, the
information age will change things on its own. E.g. Indian
programmers.
>
><snip Third World role>

>> ... I noticed some Western
>> opulence upon the downfall of the Taliban.
>
>Oh yes, indeed by the middle and upper classes in Third World
nations,
>Western views, fashions, politics etc. are very popular. That is an
>indication of where their political allegiance lies, not with their
own
>societies and cultures, but with their own narrow self-interest. This
>describes the class warfare dynamics of what happens politically and
>socially in most of the Third World, and it is the primary means by
>which the Occident keeps the Third World politically subservient and
>economically oppressed.

I hear that alot, in so many words. Seems true.
>
><snip more bits about Third World>

>> Good point. Among other things, I imagine our media exports do
assault
>> those cultures/religions.
>
>Thanks! There is some of that (deliberate Western political
propaganda
>aimed at consumption in the Third World), obviously, but it is not
very
>economically important. Remember "Bay Watch"?

Yes. I only watched it for the literary content. <g>

>That was the most popular
>TV series all over the Third World for years.

I can see why it would have mass appeal. But if I were trying to
convince a billion people that virtue trumps equality (the word
"chump" again comes to mind), I would consider its influence
counterproductive in a big way.

>The episodes that were
>broadcast were mostly two or more years old. And much of the dialogue
>was incomprehensible to people even when add-lipped in their own
>languages. But that didn't matter.

It wouldn't matter to me either - IIRC we turned the volume off
anyway!

> For people in the Third World
>NATURALLY have the exact same (cultivated) need for brain relaxing
>entertainment and fluff as do people in the Occident. The economic
>imperative, the efficiency of Western mass production methods, rules
>this reality.

3rd world porn does lack a little something! When I was a kid it was
mostly Swedish.

>The social and mental effectiveness of this kind of
>programming has to do with the inherent readiness of ordinary people
to
>accept certain "patterns", (nearly) uncritically. Those "patterns"
are
>really religious in origin, IMHO.

Are you saying religious programming forms those patterns, or that
they are instinctive? Or that they are formed in very early age, Santa
Claus, parent's uncritical thinking transferred to child, etc.?

<snip important agreement on preserving free choice>
>
>That's the only way forward. In order for people to believe in the
>promise of the future, they have to be able to imagine a future which
>is to their liking and which will empower them. When people cannot do
>that they will turn to fundamentalisms and extremism - that is one of
>the eternal lessons of history.

Ok. I'll have to give that some thought. I can think of examples where
that is true.

<snip Wiccan, etc., thanks for the perspective>

>> Well almost nobody wants their children to see some of this
>> programming, and I wonder how some fundamentalists societies view
our <snip>

>  ... suppose in the US this problem nexus will likely be
>understood as a case for or against the constitutionally guaranteed
>rights of freedom of expression (unless specific intent to harm
>somebody can be proved)?

On these types of matters, the constitution is whatever 9 people on
our Supreme Court want it to be, and most of the 9 are politically
motivated. If there were political movement on this issue, the 9 would
respond. It's a core political philosophy issue. Somebody has to make
the final decision, and that somebody is always a human. How to
achieve more objectivity in that regard?

>If that is true, then I'm reasonably sure this
>issue won't find its resolution in the current political climate, for
>the potential judgement and banning of socially offensive media
>products would possibly lead to a politicising of the whole question,
>making lots of people afraid that politically oppressive consequences
>would follow.

Previously true. In the current climate, few are doing anything about
"oppressive consequences." It seems a bygone era here in the U.S.

>If this is true, the reason for that has to be that the
>constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression is under
(political,
>economic?) attack already, probably as a result of a radicalization
of
>society and a weakening of centrist political forces.

It is dead. Speak out against the government in the U.S. now, and you
take a big chance. Today, loss of employment, social consequences.
Tommorrow, who knows? We're accumulating email databases, etc.
>
>Your question, how do "...some fundamentalists societies view our
>exportation of music videos and computer games?" is not easily
>answered, I believe. So much depends on local circumstances and on
the
>standing the US has with each specific people and/or nation.
Naturally,
>some societies view the steady import of cheap US mass media products
>as a danger to their own culture. But the opposite attitude is also
>common - as is indifference. <snip more about Bay Watch>

Agree. I was focusing on religious fundamentalist cultures.
>
><snip social hierarchy>
>><snip stuff about Aristotle and the "executive mind">
>><snip agreement about the psychology "privileged position" - thanks>
>><snip acknowledgement - thanks>
>><snip my "wordy" <g> explanation of my defensiveness>
>
><snip Guessing about seeming disagreement over Aristotle's view of
>humanity>

<snip agreement about science, framework for discussion, etc.>
>
><snip scientists easily become an elite hiding in "ivory towers">

<snip intro to managing direction of science>

>> That is something quite different from my issues on the subject. I
>> haven't given it much thought. I realize that there is a strong
debate
>> on this subject within (and without) the scientific community
itself.
>
>Yes, there is indeed a strong debate over this issue, and it has been
>going on as long as (at least) the Industrial Revolution. To my mind
>the central point of the ongoing argument is this. Science has the
>potential to help humanity in managing its own affairs in a
>self-directed, sustainable, and equitable manner. Its discoveries may
>help Man progress. Of course, the exact opposite is also true.
Science
>may help enslave Man even more to his own social constructs, making
>self-directed, sustainable, and equitable development even more
>difficult than if society had remained Feudal or Tribal. Where does
>science (meaning, the whole of the international scientific
community)
>stand today, between those two opposites? Well, my view is that
science
>is mainly in the service of oppressive social constructs (the modern
>techniques of psychological conditioning have been the result of
>scientific laboratory experimentation and theorizing, specifically
>aimed at managing society, purposefully ordered by governments and
>other authoritarian social constructs), an obstacle to the
development
>of Man, a potential danger to humanity's very existence, and that
this
>has to change (there are lots of contemporary scientists who are NOT
>like this, of course!).

I agree with that in general and in a philosophical sense. But I don't
believe slowing down technological progress (very much) is an option.
It certainly needs direction and that needs to come from the debate
you framed. As much as I have been invested in astronomy, for
instance, most of that budget could have been better spent, for
instance on energy and the environment.
>
><snip accusation of elitist arrogance and dogmatism>

>> Ok. Cast in those terms I have no problem with it. I don't think
you
>> mean to characterize proven science as dogma. But there is a lot of
>> unproven science in "science."
>
>Yes, and yes, to both your points. To possibly refine this a bit more
>I'd say, scientific dogma, whether axiomatic or proven, is fine and
has
>to occupy its all-important central position at the centre of any
>science.
>There is nothing wrong with dogma, per se. But being dogmatic is
quite
>different. To become dogmatic a scientist (or anybody) has to develop
a
>certain religious belief in the eternal and universal validity of the
>scientific dogma to which he adheres. Thus dogmatism is basically a
>reactionary (and arrogant) selfish attitude that works as a
>psychological obstacle to the proper development of new hypotheses
and
>new dogma - which dogmatic people naturally believe will NEVER
happen,
>but it ALWAYS does!

Yes - it seems a law of nature. So many people assume technological
advance will stop today. They don't factor in likely changes, or that
there will be inevitable contradictions. OTOH, scientists must assume
the default case, not to waste a lot of time.
>
><snip short speech to scientists>

>> Ok I see that as an argument about the direction of science,
perfectly
>> legitimate. I think the main counter-argument would have to do with
>> the unpredictability of some science. One definition of science is
>> "performing experiments so that other experiments may be
performed."
>> <g>
>
>Sure, scientists never really know what they'll find out next. New
>discoveries will always lead to new dogma and new theorizing which
>might again lead to new discoveries. On and on this dialectical
renewal
>of science goes. This cannot be changed unless science is censored,
>which is profoundly counter-productive and not a viable option in my
>view (humanity is simply too dependent on scientific management of
>society and nature). Thus the option that remains is one of choosing
>what scientific discoveries ought to have wider societal, economic,
and
>environmental impact and how this should be realized in practical
>terms.

Well put.

> It would be possible to imagine that a society governed by
>reason instead of fear would not build an atom bomb though it
>scientists may have discovered all the practical uses of nuclear
>fission.

I don't think they had a choice in WWII. Nobody knew who would get it
first. Source of that being religion and religion in the form of
politics, and a focal point of why I agree with your basic thesis. No
question the world would be better off without the bomb.
>
><snip "coincidental probability">

>> I seems so. The big fat problem with "coincidental probability" is
the
>> issue of "independence." I.e. isolating from cross-correlations,
third
>> factors, etc. Roughly speaking, it oftn (usually?) can't be done in
>> the real world.
>
>Yes. And since the main topics of this debate are social in nature,
>having to do with human society, history, science and a host of
similar
>subjects, it would be very hard to isolate individual strands of
>causality which would not somehow be reliant on the wider social
>context. It would be impossible, right? Still, I feel this is a
highly
>gratifying exercise. Despite the "wider social context" there are
>always many obstacles to reasoned dialogue to overcome - that's my
>experience, at least.

Yes. The distinction is between strict methodology and human judgment.
No question human judgment is superior in the "wider social context"
and quite justified, necessary. We're just keeping an eye on the flaws
in certain methodology, which I see you understand very well, and that
you agree going by previous comments about the misuse of some social
science.
>
><snipping bits of the "fog"-metaphor>

>> Yes. The "fog" is a very real thing. But if you always live in one
>> place, one sub-culture, you might never realize it. Suggesting that
>> increased mobility might help a culture towards your desired goal.
>
>It surely will. For people in the Occident I'd recommend visiting
Third
>World nations (Asia, Africa, and Latin America) and other Occidental
>nations in both hemispheres. But travelling is expensive,
unfortunately.

I just had a thought. If I were writing this book I might title it
"The Fog." It's catchy, no?

><snip yet more about the ethnocentric "fog">

>> Am I correct in assuming that in Europe there is an over-enthusiasm
>> with political philosophies? Here in the colonies, we rarely sit at
a
>> bar discussing Kant and Marx. I am given to believe that it is
almost
>> a religion in certain sub-cultures of Europe. OTOH, aren't there
>> locations in Europe mostly devoid of religion? I would be surprised
if
>> there were not.
>
>Oh, no, that's a romantic image which dates back to the -40s and -50s
>and earlier, to the caf s in Paris frequented by people like the
>brilliant Existentialist philosopher Jean Paul Sartre and his famous
>wife, Simone de Bouvoir. Even further back, the caf s on the Left
Bank
>of the Seine had a great reputation for being the "in" place for
>advangardist artists from all over Europe to gather. Some of the most
>famous artists from the late 19th to the mid 20th centuries have
lived
>in Paris on the cheap while they experimented and matured and sought
to
>establish their reputations. A good example would be Pablo Picasso.
To
>this day, specific caf s in central Paris are preferred hunting
grounds
>for the intelligenzia, like authors, poets, political commentators,
>philosophers etc.

He he...Thanks for correcting my provincial POV! One less dumb
misconception in my repertiore! How about various political extremist
groups? We have some here, but I've thought there were many more per
capita in Europe. Of course one big extreme group can be worse than a
bunch of little ones. <g>
>
><snip Orwell's utopian nightmare>

>> Lately I see it. And I hear "1984" creeping into political
>> conversation much more than ever before. But I don't see it as the
>> major problem in the West. If someone asked me that, I'd probably
say
>> nuclear/biological terrorism and lack of a sufficient energy policy
>> since the '60s.
>
>Well, those are issues, vitally important issues. Society is ALWAYS
in
>crisis in relation to some vital issue. So in my view the main
problem
>is not that contemporary society faces critical issues, but HOW it
goes
>about managing them and dealing with them. If society reacts in a
>deliberate, self-directed, rational way then it doesn't really matter
>how serious the issues are, society is doing its level best to solve
or
>overcome them or deal with them (which is all that is humanely
>possible).

True, and I think consistent with my two issues. Objective and
rational debate would solve the latter. The former (WMD terrorism) may
not be solvable, but it would be greatly alleviated.

<snip irrational scenario, invoking the reverse - agreed>

>This last is how religion basically
>functions, IMO, conditioning irrational fearful patterns of reaction
to
>psychological effects of real life issues, and it is the main reason
>why I have picked on religion as the principal culprit responsible
for
>conditioning the public and society to such unreasoned and blindly
>emotional behaviour.

To the extent that religion promotes irrational thinking, or
preconditions one to it, it is the culprit. We should make clear to
any reader that we are talking about a different future paradigm, and
that we acknowledge historic examples where religion has helped form
necessary political majorities. Fighting religion with religion, you
might say.

><snip launching the question, Where does modern mind control
practices
>originate>
>
><snip more about the origin of modern mind control>

<snip media criticism re: private ownership, "balancing," and
commerical realities>
>>
>> None of the above fully explains the phenomenon to me, so I read
your
>> explanation about religion with interest.
>
>A fine short review of the media landscape. The reason why none of
the
>cases you mention allow for any specific conclusion might be because
>they could all be viewed as examples of the same basic social
>phenomenon. Political debates, news in the media etc., from having
been
>"anchored" to specific practical issues, subjects, politics, events
>etc. of the time, have left reality behind and have now become
>purveyors of certain partisan political points of view which are seen
>as more important than the material reality of the issues at stake.
>This, I have to stress again, is what ordinarily happens to public
>debate in societies which have become politically radicalized in some
>way. The parts of the public which gobble such bilge are to be
regarded
>as having surrendered their personal critical faculties in order to
>conform to some ideology or "dominant view". That is a PROFOUNDLY
>religious exercise, which they, most of them, will already have
>practiced performing in religious contexts.

I think I can agree with that. The public lose their individual
objectivity or compass of individual experience, join the prevailing
ideology, and that is similar to religion, so religion would
precondition this. The public then do not hold "journalists" to a
professional standard.
>
><snip religious mind control is the originator of all modern mind
>control>

>> Very interesting. It must have been so easy with the public totally
>> unaccustomed to such in the mass media (not that it hasn't gone on
>> forever in more localized fashion).
>
>Yes, it was. The first major propaganda victory of 1914 was the
British
>invention of the "Rape of Belgium". History books in Europe
propagated
>that lie for more than fifty years. I think, it still persists in the
>UK (how about the US?), today, in standard history teaching
literature.
>But the Imperial German Army didn't "rape" Belgium in 1914, but it
>violated the German-Belgian neutrality pact, which was a war crime
even
>back then, of course.

Sorry, WWI is not in my repertoire. :-( I take the example at face
value. If you feel like recommending a book, I'm catching up on my
reading list.
>
><snip comments about net.kooks and other unbalanced people who flock
to
>the leader with the most irrational appeal>
>
>Yes, I cannot but agree with your concerns. Isn't the main difficulty
>to define sanity in such a way that it's inclusive of everything sane
>and exclusive of everything irrational?

Hard to reach a consensus among intellectuals on a definition of
either sanity or "rational." I think of the psychiatric definition of
sanity, i.e. interference with life circumstances. I think
"rationality" drills down to the empiricism v. faith distinction,
which is quite in agreement with you.

>To attempt that in a
>comprehensive manner would be practically impossible and perhaps even
>indicative of a certain obsessive-compulsive need for security - not
>too rational in itself.

How does comprehensive rationality translate into
obsessive-compulsive?

>No, what I would suggest in order to begin unravelling all the
>psychotic knots and neurotic fears of society is to engage the wider
>public in the social processes, enabling them to influence their own
>lives and giving them a stake in the basic ordered functioning of
>society. Something like a participatory democracy would be fine. Then
a
>sort of "miracle" can happen.

I like that. With some framework superior to usenet political groups!
<g>

>The people who have become active in this way will find their own
level
>of communal understanding, which will be based on the need to
>understand and react to reality as they see it.

I.e. according to their real experience.

>That makes this part of
>the public able to learn and to grow and to maintain mental health.
>Such a process would never become exclusive (if properly maintained)
of
>anything on principle, yet it would "automatically" exclude kooks,
>psychopaths etc. from gaining power and influence (they wouldn't feel
>welcome or comfortable).

The "framework" I was suggesting.

>Why? Because in order to tolerate psychopaths
>taking control, people would have to give up their own newfound
freedom
>and hand it over to the madmen. As long as ordinary people, a good
>majority of any society, are actively engaged in forming society and
>their own lives in the above manner, society will be (reasonably)
safe
>from excessive authoritarian forms of control and management.

To me this is profoundly true. It is the heart of the problem, the
ultimate objective standard available to us. It is how I would
approach avoiding some terrible mistakes in the past.

>But when
>a proper democracy turns into a fake "demonstration democracy", this
>becomes a real and present danger. The way to maintain public
>participation is to wean them of their passivity, which is primarily
a
>function of religious mind-bending practices.

I think "passivity" is the result of unobjective information, i.e.
political dogma, at least partly enabled by irrational thinking as you
say. I find individuals of all varieties to have good interest in
these issues, but no "rational" person (as I agree most people are)
will participate in a community charade very long. I think we agree
that at least part of the solution is good information, which is
probably what you just said!

>> It seems we have more-or-less made an overview. Maybe we should
>> replace these long posts with a summary of points where there
remain
>> substantial differences. I'll attempt it if I have time.
>
>Sorry, I should have read this bit first. Again, I've just piled it
on.

No, that's why I put it at the end! I enjoy your remarks in any case.
If we can come up with a more organized framework for the argument, we
can transfer to it. Until then, it's still fun.

>Yes, I agree, our debate has by now touched on much of what relates
to
>this subject of "god" and religion. It would be fine with an
overview.
>I'll see what I can do, too.

I haven't had too much time to work on my "outline." But I think it's
a good idea and hope to get to it.

>This message is only about 6.000 words long. Some sort of
improvement,
>right?   :-)

Length doesn't bother me if snipping doesn't bother you! It's not as
much fun if you always have to worry about the post being too long. I
can post the longer posts if I use another browser.

Thanks,

Larry
>
>Nes